- Aug 14, 2013
- 2,455
- Tinnitus Since
- Resolved since 2016
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Unknown (medication, head injury)
The following article...
www.inverse.com/article/34744-headphones-aren-t-making-teens-deaf
...was based on a newly released research paper on trends related to hearing loss in adolescents. However, the article apparently refers to the wrong study via the embedded link:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/article-abstract/2643553
The linked article by "Inverse Science" should have been this one (as far as I can tell) - both studies were released on the same day (possibly the reason for the error):
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/2643552
Regardless, the author Dan Robitzski goes on to state in his blog:
So what would constitute a valid counter argument (in relation to both the article and the research)? Well, both studies were carried out using demographics in children. To develop hearing loss actually takes "a bit" of time. In addition, hearing loss doesn't show up on an audiogram until more damage has been done to the cochlea than previously thought. Put another way, the inner ear can be damaged without seeing the effects immediately in an audiometric assessment. There are a number of potential reasons for that (the interested reader can search the Frontiers Research Topic for key words such as "stochastic resonance" and "hidden hearing loss").
www.inverse.com/article/34744-headphones-aren-t-making-teens-deaf
...was based on a newly released research paper on trends related to hearing loss in adolescents. However, the article apparently refers to the wrong study via the embedded link:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/article-abstract/2643553
The linked article by "Inverse Science" should have been this one (as far as I can tell) - both studies were released on the same day (possibly the reason for the error):
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/2643552
Regardless, the author Dan Robitzski goes on to state in his blog:
So there you have it, folks - go ahead and fry your ears. You are safe. Because, as you know, if you read on the Internet, then it must be true, right?Remember when your parents would nag you when you smushed your earbuds snugly in your ears, saying listening to your iPod or Zune all day would make you deaf, and you just rolled your eyes? Seems like rolling your eyes was the right response.
So what would constitute a valid counter argument (in relation to both the article and the research)? Well, both studies were carried out using demographics in children. To develop hearing loss actually takes "a bit" of time. In addition, hearing loss doesn't show up on an audiogram until more damage has been done to the cochlea than previously thought. Put another way, the inner ear can be damaged without seeing the effects immediately in an audiometric assessment. There are a number of potential reasons for that (the interested reader can search the Frontiers Research Topic for key words such as "stochastic resonance" and "hidden hearing loss").